Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case arose out of a permit application to obtain a water right filed by the respondents, North Snake Ground Water District, Magic Valley Ground Water District and Southwest Irrigation District (“the Districts”), to appropriate water from Billingsley Creek on real property owned by appellant Rangen, Inc. After the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources denied the application in a final order, the Districts petitioned for judicial review. The district court set aside the Director’s final order. Rangen appealed. Rangen historically diverted water from Billingsley Creek. Before the Department ruled on the Districts’ April 2013 application, Rangen filed a competing application on February 3, 2014. Rangen’s application sought to divert 59 cfs from Billingsley Creek for fish propagation, with the same source and point of diversion elements as the Districts had requested. On January 2, 2015, Rangen’s application was approved for 28.1 cfs for fish propagation with a priority date of February 3, 2014. This permit had apparently not been challenged. Department employee James Cefalo presided over a hearing on the Districts’ application and subsequently issued a Preliminary Order Issuing Permit in which he found that the application was made in good faith, did not conflict with the local public interest, and otherwise satisfied the necessary requirements. Therefore, he approved a conditional permit authorizing the Districts to appropriate 12 cfs from Billingsley Creek for mitigation purposes with a priority date of April 3, 2013. Rangen filed a protest of the hearing officer’s preliminary order with the Director. After the parties briefed the issues, the Director subsequently issued a final order overturning the hearing officer’s decision and denying the application. The Director concluded that the Districts’ application was made in bad faith and that the application was not in the local public interest. The Districts petitioned for judicial review, asserting that the Director abused his discretion and exceeded his authority in denying their application. On judicial review, the district court set aside the Director’s final order, concluding that the application was neither made in bad faith nor counter to the local public interest. The district court also rejected Rangen’s arguments that the Districts’ application was incomplete or speculative and that mitigation is not a recognized beneficial use of water under Idaho law. Rangen appealed again. After review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in its judgment and affirmed. View "Rangen, Inc v. North Snake Ground Water Dist." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a series of cases concerning the scope and location of Marti and Vernon Mortensen’s easement across Dennis and Sherrie Akers’ property. This dispute has made multiple trips to the Idaho Supreme Court. From its last trip, the Supreme Court remanded because the Akers were only entitled to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code section 6-202 for those fees incurred in prosecuting the trespass claim and not for other theories of recovery. The case was remanded for the “sole purpose” of apportioning the attorney fees the Akers were entitled to recover for prosecuting their trespass claim. On remand, Marti Mortensen argued the Akers had not provided sufficient evidence to allocate attorney fees between the various causes of action. However, the Akers produced seventy pages of billing documentation, and their counsel went through that billing and marked every item that was chargeable to prosecuting the trespass claim, arriving at $55,917.21 in attorney fees. The district court found that this figure was reasonable and awarded fees in that amount. The district court then entered judgment awarding the Akers “apportioned attorney fees jointly and severally against each defendant in the amount of $55,917.21.” Since that time Marti’s former husband, Vernon Mortensen, passed away. Marti appealed. Finding no reversible error in the fee award, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Akers v. Mortensen" on Justia Law

Charles and Donna Nickerson appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of PHH Mortgage and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. The suit involved an action for judicial foreclosure of a loan by PHH Mortgage against the Nickersons, and third-party claims against J.P. Morgan Chase by the Nickersons. The Nickersons argued they were entitled to relief based on: mistakes by the court; surprise due to the actions and withdrawal of their former counsel; excusable neglect due to their reliance on their former counsel; new evidence showing PHH did not have standing to pursue foreclosure; fraud regarding PHH’s chain of title, the amount of default, and coercion of the Nickersons at closing; and misconduct of the opposing parties regarding the depositions of the Nickersons and the submission of a fraudulent affidavit. The district court denied the Nickersons’ motions, concluding that the Nickersons failed to present admissible evidence to support their claims. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of PHH Mortgage, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "PHH Mortgage v. Nickerson" on Justia Law

This was a case involving a dispute over a mistakenly released deed of trust, which secured a 2004 residential mortgage between Ralph Sheets and the lender, Bank of America, N.A., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide); the servicer of the loan; and the trustee who executed the mistaken release (companies collectively referred to as “Bank of America”). Sheets borrowed $65,250 from Countrywide. He executed a promissory note, secured by a deed of trust to his home in New Meadows. Between December of 2004 and April of 2009, Sheets timely paid the amounts due on the note. In 2008, Countrywide sent Sheets a letter telling Sheets that he “may” qualify for a lower interest rate on a refinancing loan and estimating he had $88,056 equity in the home. Around this time, Bank of America acquired and merged with Countrywide. In the late spring of 2009, Sheets applied for a new loan (the 2009 Refinancing). Closing on the new loan was scheduled for October 27. Sheets testified that the title company agent at the closing would not let him execute the documents because they were “bad” and incomplete. Thus, the 2009 Refinancing did not close. Sheets arrived home and found proposed closing documents, but he did not sign the documents because he did not agree with the terms contained therein. The trustee of the deed of trust, ReconTrust Company, N.A. (ReconTrust), erroneously recorded a full reconveyance of the deed of trust securing Sheets’ original note. How the erroneous reconveyance came to be recorded was not clear. Bank of America claimed that it caused the reconveyance to be recorded because it mistakenly proceeded as if the 2009 Refinancing had closed. On March 29, 2010, Bank of America sent Sheets a letter asking Sheets to stipulate to rescinding the reconveyance. The next day, Bank of America filed a complaint against Sheets seeking reinstatement of the deed of trust. On May 25, 2010, Bank of America sent Sheets a notice of its intent to commence foreclosure proceedings. Sheets filed an answer, counterclaim, demand for jury trial, and third party complaint against the third-party defendants in this action. He brought counterclaims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) specific performance; (3) violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act; (4) violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act; (5) slander of credit; and (6) violation of Idaho Code section 45-1502. In 2012, Bank of America filed two motions for summary judgment, seeking reinstatement of the deed of trust and dismissal of Sheets’ counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment reinstating the deed of trust and dismissing Sheets’ counterclaims. Finding no error in the grant of summary judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sheets v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

This was an appeal of a district court order affirming in part an order issued by the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources (“IDWR”). In response to a delivery call filed by Rangen, Inc., the Director had issued an order curtailing certain junior-priority ground water pumping in the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (“ESPA”). The order provided that the junior-priority ground water users could avoid curtailment by participating in an approved mitigation plan. The Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, Inc. (“IGWA”) filed several mitigation plans for approval. The Director issued an order conditionally approving IGWA’s Fourth Mitigation Plan, which proposed leasing water from another surface water right holder and piping the water to the Rangen facility. Rangen petitioned for review. The district court upheld the Director’s order in significant part. Rangen appealed. Finding no reversible error with the district court's order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rangen, Inc. v. Dept of Water Resources" on Justia Law

Mary Pandrea appealed a district court decision regarding the partition of approximately twenty-three acres of real property owned jointly by Pandrea and her sister. Pandrea argued on appeal that the partition greatly prejudiced her and thus that the district court improperly partitioned the property in kind rather than by sale. She appealed several district court decisions denying motions she made for reconsideration and to amend her complaint. Finding no grounds to reversed any of the district court's decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pandrea v. Barrett" on Justia Law

Appellant Bradley Morgan appealed declaratory judgment determining where to measure the sixteen-foot width of an easement held by Respondent New Sweden Irrigation District, which bordered an irrigation canal that ran the length of a piece of appellant's property. Appellant did not dispute the existence of New Sweden’s easement, but rather argued that: (1) the district court erred by denying appellant's request for a jury trial; (2) the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit new evidence at trial; (3) the district court erred by failing to incorporate the holdings of a previous judgment identifying the boundaries of the easement, the access points to the easement, the encroachments on the easement, and the party responsible for removing those encroachments; and (4) the district court erred by failing to limit the removal of encroachments and the uses of the easement to that which was reasonable. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Morgan v. New Sweden Irrigation Dist" on Justia Law

Greg and Jessica Skinner appealed a judgment dismissing the Skinners’ claim of negligence against U.S. Bank Home Mortgage. U.S. Bank retained insurance funds received after the Skinners’ home was destroyed by fire and released a portion of the funds as the home was rebuilt. There were serious defects in the new construction that ultimately culminated in the project being abandoned. The Skinners claimed that the district court improperly granted summary judgment because U.S. Bank owed the Skinners a fiduciary duties regarding the disbursement of the insurance proceeds. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Skinner v. U.S. Bank Home Mortgage" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a transfer of real property located in Cassia County. Appellants-buyers Robert and Becky Humphries accused Respondents-sellers Eileen Becker, her son, Allen Becker, and daughter-in-law, Jane Becker of: (1) fraud though misrepresenting, concealing, and/or failing to disclose material information with regards to (a) the sources of water to the Property and (b) the Property’s sprinkler/irrigation system; and (2) violating the Idaho Condition Disclosure Act. The district court entered an order granting the Beckers' motion for summary judgment. The court held that: (1) The Humphries had pled fraud with sufficient particularity with regards to statements in the MLS Listing and Disclosure Form; (2) the Beckers did not make any false representations in either the MLS Listing or the Disclosure Form; (3) any duty that the Beckers may have had to disclose the existence of a Farm Well was satisfied by the Joint Well Use Agreement; (3) the representation in the MLS Listing that the sprinkler system was automatic could not serve as the basis for fraud; and (4) the Disclosure Form did not violate the Disclosure Act. The Humphries unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to Eileen Becker, and upheld summary judgment granted in favor of Allen and Jane. The Court upheld the grant of attorney's fees and costs to Allen and Jane, and granted them fees on appeal. The Court vacated the grant of fees as to Eileen, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Humphries v. Becker" on Justia Law

This appeal centered the competing security interests of appellant Liberty Bankers Life Insurance Company and respondent Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport, & Toole, P.S. in real and personal property located in Post Falls, “Post Falls Landing” and the “Marina.” These properties were formerly owned by the Point at Post Falls, LLC and Post Falls Landing Marina, LLC (collectively, “The Point”). Witherspoon provided legal representation to The Point during the purchase. In 2005, The Point granted Witherspoon a promissory note, secured by a deed of trust to Post Falls Landing. Liberty and The Point entered into an agreement by which Liberty would loan The Point money in exchange for a promissory note in the amount of the loan, which was secured by a deed of trust to Post Falls Landing. As a condition to the Original Loan Agreement, Witherspoon entered into an agreement subordinating its Original Deed of Trust to Liberty’s Original Deed of Trust. Later on, Liberty agreed to extend additional funds to The Point. These funds were used to construct the Marina. By 2010, Witherspoon entered into the last of multiple amended subordination agreements with The Point. Unlike the prior subordination agreements, the Final Subordination Agreement did not include the “and any renewals or extensions thereof” language. The Final Subordination Agreement was recorded on September 3, 2010. Liberty foreclosed on The Point in August 2011 after The Point defaulted on one of the many loans. The trustee’s sale took place in November 2012, which resulted in the conveyance of the real property of Post Falls Landing to Liberty in exchange for a credit bid of $3,404,000.00. A few months later, Liberty filed an action against Witherspoon seeking a judicial declaration that the Marina was a fixture on Post Falls Landing real property, a judicial declaration that the trustee’s deed conveyed to Liberty all interest in the Marina, and entry of a decree quieting title to the Marina in Liberty’s name. Liberty’s appeal challenged five rulings by the district court: one at the summary judgment stage and four after the bench trial. The single issue from the summary judgment stage was whether the district court properly invoked judicial estoppel against Liberty. Of the four bench trial issues, three involved Liberty’s and Witherspoon’s competing security interests in Post Falls Landing and the effect of the Eighth LMA on those interests. The fifth issue was whether the Marina was personal property or a real property fixture to Post Falls Landing. Ultimately, the judgments of the district court were vacated by the Supreme Court and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Liberty Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Witherspoon, Kelley, etc." on Justia Law